The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-09-15
In a Letter Written 10 the Rev.
Bishop Galloway,
Full OF the Old lime Fire and Eager
for the
Personal Liberty That Is the Basis
Of All Right.
why Net Trust 10 Religion aud
Education, 10 Refinement and
Science "a supps ess In.
temperance.
ESPECIAL TO THE APPxAL.I

~ Nassso' W hSeey thO
following highly interesting letter:
BxlvvoIR, MISS, September 7, 1887.
R't Rey'd Charles D. Galloway, Bishop Of
the Methodist Church, South.
DEAR SIR:-On seeing your ad.
dress delivered at Brookhaven, Mis-
sissippi, on the 10th ult., as pub.
lished in the Times Democrat, Of
New Orleans, on the 18th, wrote to
you calling your attention to pas
sages cited from your address, and
sent you printed copy Of my letter
to Gov. Lubbock, Of the Goth Of July
last. | entertained the reasonable
supposition that you had somehow
been misled as to the purport Of tina,
letter, and that upon an examination
OF the text you would acknowledge
the injustice you had done me, or II
this expectation was not we'll found
cd, that you would mark the passages
on which your structures were
founded. and return the letter TO me,
aud this requested you TO do.
You replied TO my letter on the 10th
ult., but did not meet the issue pre-
sented, did not return the printed
copy OF my letter, or specify the pas
sages Of IL which caused your attack.
In your letter, both kind and cour-
teous, you referred TO what Judge
Reagan had written and what the
saloon men OF Texas had said. | re-.
piled, on the 10Th OF August, that /
was not responsible for what Mr..
Reagan had written, or what the sa-
loon men had shd, and called your
attention 70 the failure TO return the
printed copy Of my letter as re-
quested, and In conclusion | wrote
that my first letter was from "A de-
sire 10 avoid public discussion with
you; that desire remains. Ii depends
upon you whether | shall be driven
10 the alternative OF presenting my
case before the public" that being
the tribunal before which you had
arraigned me. To this you replied,
sending back the printed copy as Il
had been sent 10 you. with an apol-
ogy for having accidentally omitted
20 enclose il in your previous letter.
Ihis forces upon me the alternative
Of replying TO your address by a
open letter.
You have expressed sorrow be-
cause i answered the inquiry OF .
friend for my opinion on political
question, aud employed many kind
and complimentary expressions in
regard 10 me, but in view Of your
persistence in unjusti6ed assailment,
your compliments seem like the gar
lands with which In the olden time
sacrifcial Offering was decorated.
Now IL il my turn 10 grieve, not for
you personally, but that a dignitary
Of the Methodist Church, South,
should have LETT the pulpit aud tho
Bible 10 mount the political rostruu
aud plead the higher law OF prohibi.
tionism-the substitution Of force Tor
FREQ will, moral responsibility, the
obligation 10 do unto others as We
would be done by, aud the brothorly
love taught by the meek aud lowly
Jesus whom We adore. In this sec
the forbidden union Of Church aud
State my grief is real, aud relateI
10 both.
Disiranchised though | be, tn,
love ofmy life for the Constitution
and the liberties IL was formed 10 10
cure remains ~ ardent In age a.
was in youth. The Methods
Church, South" has been 10 me th
OBJECT OF admiration and grateful AZ
lection, because Of Its fidelity h
principle, despite the pressure o
wealth aud power, by the zeal Of IL
underpaid ministers who have gon
along bye ways TO penetrate unire
-quented regions and there "prcaol
the gospel 10 the poor" Often ha
my memory recalled the prophet,
vision Of Bishop Marvin. Will |
be fulfilled by introducing polite
into the examination OF the churcl
he nobly illustratci3
This reply, Il may be proper her
20 remark. 10 moi made 70 you i
your character OF a dignitary Of tba
church, but in that which for tbs
occasion you haze assumed-n q pc
litioal partisan. Ii Is untenable
deny that the movement In whic
you have engaged IL political, for Il
aim Is 10 elect kepresontatiy,
pledged 10 enact, 10 govern the bod
polite. IL 10 true that you desiI
. nate the movement "a moral =,
FORM but IL seems like irony thu
20 term penal statutes hedged aboI
BY extraordinary measures Of pr
vontion.
There are two noticeable omission
in your Published criticism OF u
letter TO en- Gov. Lubbock. First, /
mention of anything TO be found
that letter: second, no statement
the amendment pending 10 Texas,
which my opinion was asked, ri
therefore, which was the subject
my answer. In my first note 10 y
tho passages Of your address We
cited which appeared TO me 10
uuwarraDled by the letter on viii
your attack was made. IL was gu
irrelevant u inform me what son
body else had said or done. Y
had assailcd me Tor a certain lett
which had written. The closi
sentence Of your published addr,
was "Ilow sad that he last wor
OF a soldier, sage or Christian shot
become the shibboleth OF
saloons" One who shall atton,iv,
read the letter against which va
attack was directed, mus, readily p
oeive why you did not comply W
my request that you would mark
massage, on which your strictu
were founded. There was no ref
once ia my letter 10 saloons.
Your intelligence does not peri
the supposition that you did not y
coiyo the distinction between y
sonal inalienablc rights which |
serted government was bound
protect, and privileges which =,
ernmont might refuse or grant, a. /
ruhi,o wellare ehould require, II